In our world there are thoasands of Gods!!!! religions, faiths,but for exemple the Buddists have their complex faith about life and what human will find or be after that life,the the christians have their believe of god,and men will be punished if they will not believe,muslims too,and all religions,
The questions is who is right, ok i want to decide that there are no jesus and Budha in the same degree. i mean two gods,are there the same god but every culture gave him a name, and develop a faith from their myths,
In our world from the begining there were always an invisible forces that men were scared from,like lightning.thunder,volcano,or even wild animals,and they make a religion and rites,laws,and if you did not do what god says you will have bad life fall of terribles,but if that man traveled to another tribe with another religion and another god is he going to have that life that the other god promised,or that god can not catch him here,it is really difficult question.
And if there is really one god and he is the right god,wich god will be and which religion will be the right religion.

i think the question should be whether all religions are merely ceremonial manifestations of the worship/recognition/experience of one and the same god.

When in college i was told by a teacher that in the Vedic writings there is a story that a mirror once fell from heaven onto earth. Upon impact it shattered into a thousand pieces, and every tribe ran to the nearest piece, picked it up and proclaimed it to be the one and only true piece of the heavenly mirror. While if they would just put them all together, they would really see it.

now i've never read this story for myself, and for all i know the teacher made it up, but i like it, alhtough i do wonder why it was a mirror that fell of all possible things...

Well, how may one determine what is or what is not a true reflection of a god or gods? I think he needs to know what the actual being (s) or object (s) is/are, as distinct from the mirror, before he may know how accurately the mirror gives a reflection thereof. We may distinguish a human from a reflection or imagination of a human, but how do we distinguish a god from a reflection or an imagination of a god? If we may not, then I don't think there is any way to answer the question with any certainty.<pre> </pre>

idir wrote:In our world there are thoasands of Gods!!!! religions, faiths,but for exemple the Buddists have their complex faith about life and what human will find or be after that life,the the christians have their believe of god,and men will be punished if they will not believe,muslims too,and all religions, ....

And if there is really one god and he is the right god,wich god will be and which religion will be the right religion.

It all depends on your definition of the idea of god/ God!! Different cultures have different definitions. This is an interesting book to read:

Faylasoof wrote:A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong

Eh. It's funny that you should recommend the book, since it really seemed to me to be A History of the Rarified God of the Philosophers and very little about what the average faithful believe. This is of course a documentation problem for a lot of history. I guess when I read it I was hoping for a different book.

This is a question no one can definitively for you as it's primarily a subjective matter. . .or at least it will be until science decides to seriously investigate it instead of dismissing the idea out of hand as empirically baseless.

Simply put, the truth is whatever you decide it is - which is precisely why Socrates never arrived at it. Your truth is not necessarily my truth, just as mine is not necessarily yours. Anyone claiming to know what the truth is either a liar, a fool, or both.

When it comes to the topic of god - is there only one? are there many? does such a thing even exist? - no one really knows. It's a personal judgement based upon their up-bringing and experiences - religious and otherwise.

As for who's right and who's wrong - neither and both all at the same time. Right and wrong are terms that are improperly applied to such things. All we can really say is that there are some things we agree with and others we don't, because in the end, no one can put forward incontrovertible proof one way or the other.

I hold a spade empty-handed. I walk on foot and yet I ride on horseback. When I pass over the bridge, the water flows not, but the bridge does.

sduncan1829 wrote:This is a question no one can definitively for you as it's primarily a subjective matter. . .or at least it will be until science decides to seriously investigate it instead of dismissing the idea out of hand as empirically baseless.

If God is defined as a supernatural being, who cannot be detected directly or indirectly by our natural senses, then the idea is "empirically baseless", and so science cannot have anything to say about it.

sduncan1829 wrote:As for who's right and who's wrong - neither and both all at the same time. Right and wrong are terms that are improperly applied to such things. All we can really say is that there are some things we agree with and others we don't, because in the end, no one can put forward incontrovertible proof one way or the other.

This sounds like a load of politically correct B.S. to me. I think you are making a categorical error. Before you bemoaned that science has not, as of yet, researched the question seriously. But that would assume that science could theoretically reach a conclusion. That would make other conclusions wrong! Either there is one God, or there is not. Either God wants us to follow Sharia law, or he does not. Etc. These are statements of fact. They are either right or wrong. Even if the statements are not in principle answerable by us, that does mean that they are "neither and both" right and wrong "all at the same time". At least, not if you believe in logic. Even the positivist theory that such statements are meaningless (which I disagree with) makes more sense.

If you were talking about values, as opposed to facts, I might agree with you. That's why I say I think you're making a categorical error.

Kasper wrote:Personally, I still don't know whether any of you actually exist, or are mere hallucations of mind.

Well, you're ahead of me, because I'm not even sure I exist. Maybe I and I don't all at the same time...

Well of course not. While I am still uncertain as to whether you are merely the figment of my imagination, and therefore whether you do or do not exist, how could you, figment my imagination, have any confidence in you're own existence? One would think this is obvious.

I had never heard of the good man prior to your post Lex, but now having had a quick Wikipedia read (how did people know anything prior to the internet?), i would say he seems to be interesting and worthy of further reading.

Lex wrote:I certainly hope that this ultra-sceptical idealist philosophy isn't true, because if it is, I am really crazy to have dreamed up all of you characters!

You don't know that. The one true god might be feeding you these thoughts and dreams.

If you use the epistemological standard of extreme scepticism with regards to the existence of other people, then to be logically consistent, you should also do so with respect to God. Which means that you shouldn't assume that God exists either, unless you assume that you are God.

Kasper wrote:All you can do is doubt.

That's not true. I can also take things that I cannot prove true for granted. Which, strangely enough, is what I in fact do. I could be wrong, but hey, it gets me through the day.

Kasper wrote:The interesting thing is that Descartes called such a god, if there were one, a very evil god. I'm not sure why he would consider illusions evil, if illusions are all there is.

Lex wrote:I certainly hope that this ultra-sceptical idealist philosophy isn't true, because if it is, I am really crazy to have dreamed up all of you characters!

You don't know that. The one true god might be feeding you these thoughts and dreams.

If you use the epistemological standard of extreme scepticism with regards to the existence of other people, then to be logically consistent, you should also do so with respect to God. Which means that you shouldn't assume that God exists either, unless you assume that you are God.

I didn't assume it. I merely denied knowledge either way.

Lex wrote:

Kasper wrote:All you can do is doubt.

That's not true. I can also take things that I cannot prove true for granted. Which, strangely enough, is what I in fact do. I could be wrong, but hey, it gets me through the day.

Agreed.

Lex wrote:

Kasper wrote:The interesting thing is that Descartes called such a god, if there were one, a very evil god. I'm not sure why he would consider illusions evil, if illusions are all there is.

Because that would make God the father of lies?

I'm not sure of that. If there is nothing else but illusion, how are illusions not true?

IreneY wrote:If everything is an illusion then nothing is true not vice versa. Illusions are not true by definition.

Sorry to barge like this in a conversation I don't have anything to contribute otherwise (as an atheist the number of deities is, let's say a moot point ).

No apology needed. And actually, I am an atheist also. But I think we have veered from a question about God, to another question of metaphysics. In particular, metaphysical idealism.

Kasper wrote:If there is nothing else but illusion, how are illusions not true?

This question isn't as silly as it first sounds, IMHO.

Let's say we are all in an "illusionary" world like in The Matrix, but there is no "red pill" to take us to a "real world" behind the Matrix. Then the Matrix is the only reality, and does not contradict anything else. Then how can it be a lie?

And, how can we know that there is a "real world" behind the sensory world that we experience everyday? How can we know that we are not in such a Matrix? What if we are pure spirit, with only thought and a consensual hallucination we call "reality"?

Yeah, yeah, I don't believe any of that either. But, I can't prove that it isn't true. I can say, however, that if you are that sceptical about substance or reality, then you should also be as sceptical about others (including God) and not accept their existence either. That would result in solipsism, with you being the only individual in existence (and maybe you are God). Either you go with the logic and accept solipsism, or you consider that it has concluded a reductio ad absurdum argument that shows that, with respect to such extreme scepticism, "that way madness lies".

Kasper wrote:If there is nothing else but illusion, how are illusions not true?

This question isn't as silly as it first sounds, IMHO.

Thank you.

However like you, I do not believe it either. I am merely making the argument because for some reason it does attract me as an interesting thought.

Let's say we are all in an "illusionary" world like in The Matrix, but there is no "red pill" to take us to a "real world" behind the Matrix. Then the Matrix is the only reality, and does not contradict anything else. Then how can it be a lie?

That, I think, is different from the situation where there is no real world, but existence is limited to the visions, or dreams, etc, that pass through our â€˜minds eyeâ€™. If there is a real world underneath our illusory sensory experience, than illusions are still lies, even if we cannot perceive the nature or extent of the lie because we cannot compare the illusion to the real world.

It may be a feature of some sects to induce their members to believe that the world outside is evil and out to get them. The members may accept this illusion as truth, but their inability to access the â€˜realâ€™ truth does not mean that the illusion has become the truth. It remains a lie.

And, how can we know that there is a "real world" behind the sensory world that we experience everyday? How can we know that we are not in such a Matrix? What if we are pure spirit, with only thought and a consensual hallucination we call "reality"?

In the first instance, I donâ€™t think that we can know the real world, and as per your previous post, we really have no option but to accept the illusion as reality. The practical implication of refusing to do so could be quite severe, however courageous (of course there is a thin line between courage and stupidity).

In the second instance, I think these are hallucination are reality, and not a substitute.

Yeah, yeah, I don't believe any of that either. But, I can't prove that it isn't true. I can say, however, that if you are that sceptical about substance or reality, then you should also be as sceptical about others (including God) and not accept their existence either. That would result in solipsism, with you being the only individual in existence (and maybe you are God). Either you go with the logic and accept solipsism, or you consider that it has concluded a reductio ad absurdum argument that shows that, with respect to such extreme scepticism, "that way madness lies".

Iâ€™m not sure whether I believe it, but like you I cannot prove it either way. I would not consider it a negative however if it were so.
It raises interesting questions about individual mental control over our perception of reality. If we could accept that all that we experience exists only in our minds, than why can we not control the way in which this affects us, e.g. emotionally? In the extreme this may lead to some catatonic state, to be avoided for sure, but on the other hand it may provide a balance to the position of â€˜I canâ€™t help how I feelâ€™. Canâ€™t you? Is there no choice in the impact of (illusory) perception on our state of mind?

I think most people understand the word 'illusion' to mean a false representation of what is.... but if 'all is an illusion' that means there is no 'other' reality to make a false reference to and so it is not an 'illusion'. Illusions can only exist if the alternative reality exists... so that means everything cannot be an illusion by the very meaning of the word. It's like saying there are created things, but there is no creator; pieces of art, but no artist; the former assumes the latter. And so the very idea of 'illusion' assumes a reality that it references.... i guess an illusion is like a pronoun! ha! it points to something else without actually being it. it could be called a 'proreality'.

True, but things that are truly imaginary only exist as imaginary ideas.... things that are real exist in our minds as ideas of them, but also in the external world apart from our minds. It's like that "if a tree falls and no one hears it" saying... things exist apart from our knowledge or understanding of them, and likewise imaginary things can exist in our minds that do not really exist apart from them... the idea of a universe without a thinking creator is an imaginary idea, it exists, but only in the minds of some... not apart from them.